Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFraternities and Sororities Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Fraternities and Sororities is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Navigation tools[edit]

Scope of the Project, Notability Rules (clarification), and Syntax for the Watchlist are linked here: Watchlist Talk Page. A discussion on the types of chapter status is here: F&S Project talk page, Archive #7.

Redlinked school pages[edit]

I have updated the master list of institutions that are red-linked in chapter lists for fraternities, sororities, honor societies, and other groups covered by our WP. This list is alphabetical by school name and includes all known associated groups in that single entry. There are also some sources to aid in creating articles for these redlinks, as identified by various editors. This page can hold drafted text for each item until enough info and sources exist to publish as a stub. Items can be removed from the list, once an article is created. Rublamb (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard chapter lists[edit]

This section is transcluded from /Substandard chapter lists. (edit | history)

This is a working list of articles with substandard or missing chapter lists, which merit the attention of Project editors. For examples of lists, see List of Zeta Psi chapters, List of Beta Theta Pi chapters or the Alpha Delta Phi Society. If you are working on an article, please indicate below. Strike out when the article is fixed. Jax MN (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this list had been much longer; editors have reposted it after removing the completed projects. Jax MN (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard lists of notable members[edit]

This section is transcluded from /Substandard notable member lists. (edit | history)

This is a working list of articles with substandard, bloated or missing lists of notable members, which merit the attention of Project editors. For examples of lists, see List of Alpha Omicron Pi members or List of Alpha Delta Phi members, though each of these could be expanded with a chapter location field. As another example, Phi Kappa Theta does a nice job with their notable members list, with the addition of some color title lines. We may opt to use this styling as a way of breaking up a wall of text.

Standard content for a member list is name, chapter and initiation year, notability, and references. Long list are usually divided into careers such as academia, art and architecture, business, entertainment, government (non-political) law, literature and journalism, military, politics, religion, science and medicine, technology, and sports.

If you are working on an article, please indicate below. Strike out when the article is fixed.

To avoid vanity listings, on these page's Talk pages, it would be helpful to add a list of rules for inclusion, as discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_6#Notable_members_2. Jax MN (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many GLO member lists are simple lists of names. This is just a start.

  • List of Alpha Delta Phi members, needs a location field (to clarify, does each line need a location of that chapter? or skip this?)
  • List of Alpha Omicron Pi members, needs a location field (to clarify, does each line need a location of that chapter? or skip this?)
  • List of Acacia members, alphabetize lists by last name, alphabetize sections, needs references
  • Delta Zeta, inset list of names, ought to merit a list article with table.
  • List of Eta Kappa Nu members, simple list, few references, needs chapters and locations. As a point of clarification, for honor societies that award membership as honoraries (~mid-career) it seems we should simply note that they are an honorary member of the national society if they were not initiated into a specific chapter.
  • List of Sigma Alpha Epsilon members, needs table(s), needs references

Cleanup project[edit]

The main list of infobox issues can be found at Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues.

I have these here from other discussions so they are easier to find:

  1. "| coat of arms", where "| image_size" is null or missing. (The size parameter is manually adjusted, depending on actual image size.) - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (203)
  2. "| crest", where "| image_size" is null or missing. - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (203)
  3. "| founded" where the tag structure "{{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd}}" is NOT used - tracked at petscan DONE
  4. missing |affiliation= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing affiliation (292)
  5. missing |type= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing type (0)
  6. missing |scope= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing scope (0)
  7. missing |member badge= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing member badge (723)
  8. missing |chapters= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing chapters (46)
  9. missing |members= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing members (669)
  10. Missing infobox
  11. Missing countries
  12. Missing ZIP code" IF the other address fields are present
  13. missing |website= Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website (212)
  14. Missing short descriptions. - tracked here DONE
  15. Orphans - via WP Orphanage search DONE
  16. Redirects - available through the table on the WP landing page. But this does not tell us which ones are on our watchlist as notable organizations.
  17. Article name does not match infobox - DONE
  18. Cleanup/Needing attention
  19. Unreferenced or Refimprove
  20. Primary sources or One source or More footnotes needed
  21. Notability
  22. missing |status= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing status (691)
  23. "| colors" is missing one or more color boxes in this format: "{{color box|#FF0000}}", with any HEX code. I prefer not to use borders or inset words in these swatches, so please also flag variants of that tag, like this: {{color box|#930e06|Red|white}}.
  24. "<span>" tag is used in a colors parameter field.
  25. Needs color boxes:
Rublamb (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missing website is not working--it is empty which cannot be right. Rublamb (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was setting up the check assuming |status= was filled in. Adjusted now. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful link, showing colors, flags and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German and Polish fraternities. Jax MN (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short Histories of Sororities.[edit]

Banta's Greek Exchange in the 1910s had a series called "Short Histories of Sororities" by Ida Shaw Martin . The one for Beta Sigma Omicron was at https://books.google.com/books?id=He8TAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA341#v=onepage&q&f=false , and that has about three times the information we have in the article. Even for some of the groups which are still active, it might be worth it to work through them. (That google "book", the year (four issues) had Alpha Sigma Alpha, Alpha Xi Delta, Beta Sigma Omicron &Chi Omega) Naraht (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to look through later issues to see if this extended (presumably next would be Delta Delta Delta (followed by Delta Gamma)Naraht (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given our prior discussions - Removing centered.[edit]

I am removing the "centered" on the status and reference columns in Template:FratChapter.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in Template:FratChapter2 which does to different list of columns, *everything* is centered. Note this is only used in *one* article List of Phi Sigma Kappa chapters. Nuke all of the code to do centering there as well?Naraht (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the article I have been avoiding! If it is the only one with that template, I am almost tempted to move it to a visual editor table, so that the template can be deleted. But, then, one of us would have to deal with that crazy article and all of its photos. Maybe getting rid of centering it an easier solution. Rublamb (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. It appears, someone, should work on that article. It was an early effort on my part, and since then we have come to solid agreement on syntax. If someone has a better solution for the photos, I'd love to see it. A scrolling ribbon? Jax MN (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photos have stumped me for two years. Following what we have done for other articles, I think there could be a section on Chapter houses in the main fraternity article. These photos can be in a gallery there under that section. Does that makes sense? Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd hoped, earlier, that this would spark other groups to add galleries of house photos. As long as we keep them somewhere, I'm supportive of that change. A scrolling gallery would make the most sense. Jax MN (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other options is photos within the table but I have never been a fan of the those tiny images. Rublamb (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt the same way, after seeing examples. I tested several styles. Jax MN (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the photos to Phi Sigma Kappa#Chapter houses. Before I tackle the table, do we want to keep the photo links or is the gallery in the main article enough? If we do keep the photo links here, should they be in their own column? Rublamb (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving things forward on this one. The thumbnail layout bothered me, as it simply had too much white space. I just revised that section to use the gallery-hover template, where the captions pop up with a cursor movement. I'd like feedback on this, too. Also, there may be another type of gallery template I don't have at the moment, like a big wheel of photos that one may scroll through, left to right. Would that be better? Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference. I like the "passive" presentation of the photo captions in the traditional gallery template but do understand your issue with that much white space in an article that is already really long. With art, I would prefer the white space to let each image stand on its own, but that is not as important with chapter house photographs. Of course, the best solution is to have a short description of the historically important chapter houses and align the photos with the text, as done with St. Anthony Hall. I will eventually work on that after I finish upgrading the chapter house stub articles, which may or may not be linked to the main GLO article. I think I am 2/3s completed on that project. Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the links to the photos that are in the chapter list reference section? Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

Our watch page syntax list sets a preference for the term "general" when refering to the typical college social fraternity or sorority. I noticed that List of social fraternities and sororities refers to them as traditional under the heading Traditional Emphasis. Whereas List of general fraternities refers to non-collegiate organizations. Doesn't there seem to be a conflict in our use of terms? Should List of social fraternities and sororities be using the term "general"? Should List of general fraternities be moved to List of Non-collegiate Fraternities--as this would seem clearer to eveyone? Rublamb (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jax MN, @User:Naraht, and @Primefac: Either everyone missed this or no one want to dig into this mess. Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just haven't had time. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had another thought. General Fraternities might be Community or Community-based instead Rublamb (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with non-collegiate. There may be some overlap, groups like Alpha Phi Alpha still view on the collegate campus as a model. I think the closest to true confusion collegiate vs. community is probably Commons Clubs. Note, the Philippines is a *completely* different discussion here.Naraht (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've wrestled with this too. Some time ago I settled on use of "Social" and "Academic", using them interchangeably, to describe the traditional undergraduate fraternities and sororities that do not self-select into a tighter segment, such as (Mono) Cultural or Multicultural types. For me, these terms supplant (replace) use of the modifier "General", which had (with "Social") been common in various Baird's editions, a word (General) which has evolved to take a broader role in describing groups like the Masons, Odd Fellows, and many others. Conversely, the Cultural fraternities can indeed claim the modifiers "Academic", "Social" or "Non-collegiate", depending on their identities, but they may also be more carefully and tightly defined by other adjectives: "Multicultural" is the most prevalent; "Latino" is even tighter.
I think we all have a clear idea of when to use "Professional", "Service" and "Honor", though some Social groups slip in the term Service into their bios and their infoboxes because their operational model is on the fence. Baird's editors would have had them pick one or the other. Some years ago, "Recognition" societies, as a class, were apparently adopted into the broader grouping of Honor societies; here on Wikipedia we don't appear to distinguish between them. There are a variety of levels of operational vigor among the honor and former recognition societies, today.
Finally, getting back to the term "Academic", it is a somewhat newer adjective in the present context, I think as a response to the growth of non-collegiate GLOs that describe either community service or military focus. On page I-9 of the 20th ed. of Baird's Manual, an essay by Kent Christopher Owen dated 1991 describes much of this as I have stated, and further notes that "General fraternities are commonly called "social" fraternities, but while the initial use of the term social referred to social development, the term has been mistakenly thought to refer to social functions by members and non-members alike. Actually, the intent was to suggest that a student needed to be "socialized," that is, directed with a proper consideration of one's future responsibilities in society." Owen went on to state (in 1991) that "Fraternity leaders prefer the term general fraternity when referring to organizations that offer membership to students from all academic backgrounds", and are often single-sex. Importantly, in the three decades since this was written, I think that use of the term "General" has evolved and that "Academic" serves its former purpose for GLOs, which may sometimes be replaced by "Social" at the writers option to avoid repetitive prose. Jax MN (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I write these long paragraphs. Sorry 'bout that. I don't mean to be tedious. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: If traditional "social" fraternities are to be called "general", what is the correct name for the non-collegiate article? We are not limited to Baird's here, but can also go with what will make sense to the average person. To me, it is confusing to call the Masons and Alpha Phi Omega the same kind of group; that is, general. The two might have common things (ritual, service and friendship), but the huge difference is community vs. collegiate. Also, I don't think general and academic are the same thing. Aren't there a few groups that are not honor societies or professional societies but are based on an academic field? Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed something because of my too-lengthy response. I said I think we ought to use Social or Academic, interchangeably, rather than General. General may reasonably be used for the non-collegiate groups, as so many of these have arisen over the past few decades. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So this means we need to update the watch page, right? Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leland's Annual: The Fraternity-sorority Directory[edit]

Does anyone have access to this for 1967 or 1970? The snippet in Google shows that these editions included Eta Upsilon Gamma, which was not included in the 1962 Baird's. I am hoping this might provide some clues to the ending of this sorority. Rublamb (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local chapter misconduct sections.[edit]

Should they be newest to oldest or oldest to newest? Naraht (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question, as any History narrative begins with the oldest sections. Yet for misconduct, I think starting with the most recent makes sense, trailing into the older items. Then, after a period of years (ten?) these would normally fall off. Maybe even earlier, to be relegated to a chapter EFN. Of course some items would remain persistent, as they are of notable significance, like the fraudulent Phi Kappa Psi / Rolling Stone story. Jax MN (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thought process, but I would stick to chronologic order, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Another idea is the create two subsections: current and historic. That way, the majority of the list would be in date order and the most current could be at the top of the section. Rublamb (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference here. My instinct is to strive for clarity, and lead with information that casual researchers would want to find. If you happened to have looked up Wikipedia guidelines for this, you might reference them here, for review by others. Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is briefly mentioned in MOS:LISTSORT Rublamb (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, oldest first is preferred...Naraht (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and Soroities Guideline[edit]

Is it possible to make a comprehensive guideline article for how a standard fraternity or sorority page should look? I've found Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice to be incredibly helpful. Of course each page would have a level of uniqueness to it, but just as any university there are some standard characteristics that should be recommended.

Please let me know if I am missing something on the project page, but I currently do not find the templates section to be sufficient. Pancake621 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pancake621. I note you recently joined the Project. We welcome you. Reading your question above I was intrigued to note the support document for college and university articles, originally written back in 2007. I'm sure it has been heavily used. It was thus a factor in the decade when most of those articles were created. We could certainly use it for our efforts to finish writing articles about dormant schools. Meanwhile, as to your query about a similar style and syntax guide for fraternity and sorority articles, while we may have benefited from such, years ago, alas, I don't know that anyone ever created a similar guide. However, much of the direction you seek is here in the archived TALK pages of this Project page, with a few key items pinned to the top. We track substandard chapter list pages, missing school pages, and discuss the details of stylistic points here. Several of the most active project editors operate with a strong consensus gained from these earlier discussions, but that doesn't really help you if you don't have a ready-reference.
Because this is 2024, and many of the GLO articles are much advanced from their origin as stubs, and the many list pages we track are quite improved from fifteen years ago, I'm less inclined to write this document. However, many points from our archived discussions could be summarized or hyperlinked to quickly form the framework of a new guidance article. Are you interested in working on it?
Yours was a fair question, and I realize that, had we had such a document a decade ago when I was beginning to work on these articles, perhaps we could have corralled other new editors to the Project, and maybe avoided various AfD battles. A guideline like this would have been a solid framework for consensus. Still, we're far more organized and these articles have been much improved over the past decade. Jax MN (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome!
I'd be happy to help refine a draft! I feel as tho I am far too new to this WikiProject and wiki-editing in general to create a helpful guideline. (for example, I am a bit unsure of how'd to create that page on the backend for everyone to access).
I also agree that many articles seem to be beyond an original draft, but I've still used them to improve start- or c-class articles for the university wikiproject. I also think it would be good to have a reference for people looking to improve their own organization's page to have some easy to reference guide. Pancake621 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea. Although some groups have variations specific to them, there is a format we tend to use. In addition, there a plenty of discussions to pull from where we decided what content to include in a given section or format for content. It is something I keep meaning to draft. Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help refine a draft! Pancake621 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to it eventually. Currently working on a bear of a project. Rublamb (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable member lists[edit]

Before we put a lot of effort into creating this list of new projects, I have some thoughts based on my work in this area. I suggest that we stage this project, focusing first on identifying groups that lack a notable members list. (I have been adding these as I update an articles and find that many lack any notables). Next, we can work on updating existing lists by addimg missing chapters and sources. The latter is required for list articles but can take a signficiant amount of time to find. To me, the least important stage of this project would be changing existing lists from bullet lists to tables. The reason this is list important to me is that the benefits of sorting with this data set is limited to chapter name; many of those are missing and/or difficult to find.

I would also like to suggest prioritizing working on articles missing an infobox and/or lacking graphics for the creast and badge. Rublamb (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that Naraht offered a search param to find articles without infoboxes. Presently, I work on the infobox and crest omissions when I see an article pop up that has recently been edited. (I track everything on our watchlist.) Did Naraht offer a similar query strong for missing crests? I will continue to work on those as they come up, and with a list, would be willing to aggressively knock them down. BTW, I have both the 19th and 20th edition of Baird's. The graphics which I can scan in the 19th are typically much higher quality than the 20th ed.
Also, I like our practice of pinning tracking lists to the top of the Talk page. Redlinked school names, chapter list, notables, and maybe infoboxes and missing crests/swatches, all would be useful to list our priorities. Jax MN (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Naraht could generate a list of articles missing infox boxes, we probably could also get those articles missing short descriptions. If we could get those that lack an infobox image, we still wouldn't know it the image was of its crest, logo, or badge. But it would be a start. Good idea. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without infobox fraternity" isn't hard, what is more difficult is determining the universe of those that you would want to see. Do we have a category (we have have it grab all subcategories as well).Naraht (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your earlier work on articles with the infobox fraternities, I think we would be fine looking at all of them. Rublamb (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is being asked for. A) Articles about fraternities/sororities/honoraries without an infobox fraternity (or redirect) or B) Articles that have infobox fraternity and lack a value for a specific parameter.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, let's start with no infobox at all. Then, no short description. We can mess with missing content once we get caught up on the basics. Rublamb (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With some help from the Autowikibrowser team who used Petscan (https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28124502), I have verified that all 38 pages whose titles consist entirely of two or more Greek Letters and do not have the infobox either have no connection with Greek Letter Organizations (like Xi Xi) or are GLO Dab pages (like Delta Phi Epsilon or more complex). Next step is working for those that do have the infobox, which are missing various fields we fiew as essentials, I'll create a new subsection.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missings from the infobox[edit]

Note we could set up the infobox to automatically put articles using the infobox without a specific field into a maintenance cat, I think.Naraht (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Let me know what other searches to do?Naraht (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a maintenance cat here would be terrific. As to sizing there is a separate parameter that adjusts the ultimate size of the crest. It's only with the member badge, reflected in the member badge parameter where it is helpful to add a size within the link tag. (I normally reduce these in size, where relegated below a standard crest, to a small size thumbnail that doesn't need a compression parameter.) Jax MN (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, which ones? Category:Infobox holiday with missing field can be our model.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful to track these:
  1. "| coat of arms", where "| image_size" is null or missing. (The size parameter is manually adjusted, depending on actual image size.) - tracked here
  2. "| crest", where "| image_size" is null or missing. - tracked here
  3. "| founded" where the tag structure "{{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd}}" is NOT used - tracked at petscan
  4. instances where "| affiliation" is missing - tracked here
  5. instances where "| type" is missing - tracked here
  6. instances where "| scope" is missing - tracked here
  7. instances where "| member badge" is missing - tracked here
  8. instances where "| chapters" is missing - tracked here
  9. instances where "| members" is missing - tracked here
  10. instances where "| ZIP code" is missing, IF the other address fields are present
  11. instances where "| colors" is missing one or more color boxes in this format: "{{color box|#FF0000}}", with any HEX code. I prefer not to use borders or inset words in these swatches, so please also flag variants of that tag, like this: {{color box|#930e06|Red|white}}. Finally, I'd like it to flag instances where a "<span>" tag is used in a colors parameter field.
Regarding the use of text captions within color swatches. Lambda Pi Chi offers an example. I prefer to float the name of the color as a hyperlink adjacent to the swatch, and not muddy up the swatch with words or borders. Thoughts?
On that last item, the SPAN tags signify an MS-Word artifact, and smaller color swatch. The square swatch I use is somewhat larger, and when I place them I confirm the colors against either branding guides, or as direct samples from crest images themselves. Often I find that SPAN controlled swatches are incorrectly rendered, with the smaller size less helpful, visually.
Thanks again for fussing with this. Does the maintenance cat allow tracking of multiple parameter problems on the same bulleted item, maybe coded? Or is it a 1:1 basis? Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a crack at type and founded. I know "founded" will have a few for the GLOs that don't know. I think I brought up a few earlier in the talk. I may also need to null edit all of them before they show up. :(Naraht (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did type and 23 pages instantly showed up at Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing type. We probably want it like the name match, limited to mainspace, but let me know. Please take a look at them and figure what we need to fix.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN took care of the European ones, see below. Of course that means that getting all of Studentenverbindung to use infobox:fraternity is probably a project now.Naraht (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've numbered your list so that it's easier to reference. #1-2 and #4-9 are tracked in Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues. I honestly don't think #10 should be tracked. The check code for the others is a bit more complex so it might take me a bit longer to get set up. I've added a petscan link for #3. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back over the list, some of these just don't feel useful at all, and some aren't really problems. Lots and lots of groups have no affiliations, (even if we include some of the groupings in Europe). And chapters, we should figure out format especially for the inactive/merges. As for founded, I'm not sure that founded is the only field that could have start date and age, but even if we expect that, the other questions is whether year or month/year alone represent issues for that field or not.Naraht (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the color boxes - I did a quick run through all pages transcluding the infobox and ended up changing 20 pages. Coding up a check to make sure it's in a specific format is probably more complicated than it's worth, and a quick check every few months to clean up the handful of pages that might use something other than we want is probably best. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12) Has website. tracked here,Naraht (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type for European Groups[edit]

The missing Type cat showed us that the European Groups have been left deliberately empty. Do we use Studentenverbindung for these?Naraht (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might check on what they do for other language Wikis. Here on the English Wiki we could simply create a new type for European or Asian-based. Jax MN (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at a couple that are German, they are described as Studentenverbindung, but even the ones from farther east, which end up at pages that translate as student corporation, end up at Studentenverbindung as the German equivalent which we have an article for in English, so unless there are objections, I'm going to put that on the groups from that tradition.Naraht (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German article gives the impression that „Studentenverbindungen/ Studentenkorporationen/ Student associations“ are a special form of a student society at German universities. In fact, this is a possible – but narrow – understanding of the term. The Staatslexikon and the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit do not provide a clear definition of the term. Although both initially see the term as a synonym for versatile student societies, which would therefore also include forms of student associations in other countries (such as student nations in Sweden or fraternitis in North America), they then narrow it down to the German phenomenon and cite the customs and traditions common to german student associations today (separation of members into Füchse, Burschen und Philister; Kneipen; Wichs) as common characteristics. It would perhaps be useful to set out the narrower and broader definition of the term „student association“ in the article. Instead of „Studentverbindung“, the article should perhaps be renamed „German Student association“, as the English version of the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit does. The term fraternity is a rather unfortunate choice. --Teutschmann (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Teutschmann[reply]
This may be a moot point, as the English Wikipedia need only have the basic structure. The German Wikipedia may be the best place to include more detail on how these are categorized. However Teutschmann, if you have a more accurate, generic terms for ALL of these German student groups, better than Studentenverbindung, then let us know. In our Watchlist we aim to list the student groups that are most like US fraternities. We argue about where to draw the line. Jax MN (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German term „Studentenverbindung“ or „Studentenkorporation“ corresponds to the term „[German] Student association“ (German not in the sence of the State Germany). What a (German) student association is and what it is not, is clearly defined. Only student associations have the institution of the Kneipe. I would also like to point out that the authors of the article on student fraternities are wrong in almost every statement in the article. And I'm not joking, it's downright bizarre to read through. If I started correcting here, I'd be immediately banned for alleged vandalism.  Hardly any statement in the article is correct. Teutschmann (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teutschmann: If you are referring to Studentenverbindung, much of that article is unsourced. An update with sources would be appreciated, not challenged, especially from someone who has a better understanding of these groups. Rublamb (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information field - defunct[edit]

As an additional field that won't necessarily display, I'd like to add a defunct parameter to the infobox. We could at *minimum* use this to make sure that some group that merged in more than 100 years ago doesn't complain about not having a website. (Defunct will include merged)Naraht (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should display. I'm actually surprised we don't have a parameter for the closing/defunct/whatever-you-want-to-call-it date. If that does get added in, though, we can easily use it to trigger other things (though it is possible that defunct orgs, even those from 100 years ago, could theoretically have a website). Primefac (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several fields in the Infobox Organization that we could copy, including Predecessor, Merged, Successor, Dissolved, and Status. Also, we should add an Affiliation field, rather than having to add it as a free field. Another area to review is the Chapters field. We could expand this to provide the option of Active Chapters, Dormant Chapters, Alumni Chapters, and Graduate Chapters. These could stand alone or populate the Chapters field, the way Lifetime goes into the Members field. That would let us added chapter options without having to immediately address the many variations of data currently in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal -> Status[edit]

Status parameter.

  1. 3 values. D for Defunct. M for Merged. A for Active. Also accepting the full word.
  2. If Status = Merged and Merged_with field has a value, display. (Could be Multiple).
  3. Website/Homepage displays regardless, but only "complains" if Status = "A".
  4. Remove Former from text in affiliation (other?), add programatically if D or M.

I figure that even with all of the organizations we have, filling in that would take us together a few days. Naraht (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the full words spelled out, rather than D, M or A. It's more clear, for casual researchers. This will be a helpful addition to the infoboxes. Jax MN (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the full words requirement. Setting up a maint category if the value is anything else is fine.Naraht (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coding-wise it's not that much more onerous to have extra values (since we'd likely be using a #switch statement anyway) but I'm happy to work with whatever gets decided. I do suppose if there are other triggers then simpler would be better. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac I think we are go on this. I figure create the parameter, add it to the infoboxes, use it to limit the no website category and then see what else we can use it for. The Defunct and Merged should correspond with the entries in Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities and their subcategories, but I'm not sure that is something worth putting into stone.Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, given that some GLOs sort of fall apart and have chapters brought in, I'm going with the following distinction between merged and defunct based on the Delta Sigma Epsilon merger into Delta Zeta. If all (or most) alumni members of organization A are offered membership into organization B then it is a Merger, otherwise it isn't. (I'm not saying all because if Organization B has a chapter at the same school as Organization A, often those chapters are released without the undergraduate members of Organization A being offered membership). Alumni members of the chapter of Organization A at that school can get tricky).Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Also, I'm pretty sure we should use status rather than Status as a parameter. Consistency on lower case.Naraht (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

I'd like to define what should be used in each of the following situations.

  1. One chapter active - Many nationwide inactive
  2. Half a dozen chapters but spread from coast to coast
  3. 200 chapters - all in the USA
  4. 200 chapters - 197 in the USA, 3 in Canada
  5. 80 chapters - all in the Philippines.

Naraht (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My responses assume our options are local, regional, and national.
  • 1. That one's complicated and gets into the legal status of the national organization. Has the last active chapter disaffiliated (either before or after the national group ceased operations) and is now operating as a local OR is the last chapter still considered part of the formerly national org (the national never ceased operations)? I have dealt with both situations in the past two weeks. In one instance, there is only one collegiate chapter left, but the alumni and governing board of the national still meet. This could be either Local or National (former), although the latter seems a better response. In the other, the national closed for good, but two rogue chapters continued to function in isolation, not even aware that the other existed. We could treat this as an inactive group, with a status of National. I think this is why fields that indicate active/dormant status and action/dormant chapter numbers is important. That way, scope can address the bigger picture, not the last breath of a group.
  • 2. National (US)
  • 3. National (US)
  • 4. International
  • 5. National (PH). I have decided this is the best way to describe this situation as this is English Wikipedia not Wikipedia US. Note that I have started including which country the group is national in within the field. However, this is an unneeded duplicate if the country field is also included.
  • 6. Adding another one to discuss. Active GLO has chapters cross the US but used to have 5 chapters in five other countries. All international chapters are now defunct. I tend to go with National here.
Rublamb (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International is of course an option. :) I *think* the only National possibilities that I've seen are US, PH, & CA. Of course the question is whether the Puerto Rican Fraternties are Regional or National.
For Regional in the USA, In the 20th and 21st century, I tend to use Regional if the covering convex polygon is less than 1/3 of the country. Prior to the 20th century, I tend to use whether it had chapters in both the Northern and Southern States. So a fraternity with chapters in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina would be Regional if it was 21st century and National if it was 1856.
For Regional in the Philippines. There are three major Island groups of the Philippines, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. Regional if multiple chapters and in only one Island Group, National if it has chapters in more than one of the three. (and yes, I've seen that definition used in other context in the Philippines, such as Basketball leagues)
Agree on #6 Naraht (talk)
Heck. We clearly need to define these terms and provide guidelines as User:Pancake621 suggested. Looks like we could also use the help of non-US editors.
My use of regional has been much tighter, based on what I found when I first joined the WP. My interpretation has been a group with several chapters in one state (usually California) or two or three chapters in two or three adjacent states. Maybe the former is better described as local which I have previously used to mean a single-location GLO? (I do have a hard time describing a two-chapter GLO with one chapter in LA and another in Sacramento as "local" given that this is the geographic equivalent of one chapter in Georgia and another in Pennsylvania. Fortunately, there are not many of those.) I am fine with Regional being used as you suggest as it relates the "normal" use of that word, as in North, South, Northeastern, Western, Southwest, Midwest, etc. of the United States. However, I will have some correcting to do as my ratings and those of others may not conform.
I treat Puerto Rico as a state (meaning local) but could be convinced to do otherwise by those more familiar with its 78 municipalities. I am against calling a GLO "international" because PR is in the mix for a US-based GLO. That is just wrong.
National could also apply to European groups. There are list articles for organizations in Germany and France, so those to countries are in the mix. When I come across them, I have attempted to correct articles that indicate groups limited to one country (Germany, France, PH, etc.) are international when they are, in fact, national, regional, or local.
Your knowledge of the Philippines from working on APO is significant and valuable here. In the rare case that I come across PH GLO articles, I have limited my selections to local (one chapter) or national (more than one chapter), but regional should be an option. Same with other countries. Thus, we need a few international editors, or at least, editors who are willing to do some research. Rublamb (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For groups that fall under our Wikiproject, 99% of the organizations fall into a few categories.
  1. Founded in the USA/Canada and falls easily into one of the Baird's cats
  2. Founded in the Philippines
  3. Founded in Germany/Eastern Europe (areas that would have been considered Central Europe pre-WWII) based on that german model ( Studentenverbindung) Note this does *not* apply to the French group..
  4. Founded in Puerto Rico. I *think* some of these have spread to Florida.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right. Rublamb (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you all have been busy. FWIW, I like to consider how a fraternity refers to itself, regarding whether it is "regional" or "national". Chi Tau was certainly regional, as most chapters were in North Carolina. A California-centric multicultural group, which spawns a chapter in Vegas would also be regional. If they suddenly open in SUNY-Buffalo, they'd probably refer to themselves as national. Nothing much else to add on this specific topic, and I concur with the general plan. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 10 minutes after reading this, I was working on the list of articles with stub notices and came across a group from the Netherlands and and group from Chile (but affiliated with Germany). Doesn't change what you wrote but was strangely funny. Rublamb (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option for US and Canada groups: North America

Chapters[edit]

10 Active chapters, 5 Inactive chapters, should chapters = 10 or chapters = 15? Naraht (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered that when I see the infobox in the wild. If anything we should change the wording of the label to be "Active chapters" to make it more obvious. I don't think the number of inactive chapters is particularly useful. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the wild indeed. What about a defunct group that used to have 375 chapters? Would that be zero? I tend to go with the number of active chapters if the group is still active and the total lifetime chapters if the group is defunct. But what about a case of 125 total chapters with only 3 active? Some editors solve this issue by something like: 3 (active), 122 (dormant), but not everyone does this and I think it clutters the field. See my suggestion below. Rublamb (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting my suggestion for the chapter field from above: We could expand this to provide the option of Active Chapters, Dormant Chapters, Alumni Chapters, and Graduate Chapters. These could stand alone or populate the Chapters field, the way Lifetime goes into the Members field. That would let us add these chapter options without having to immediately address the many variations of data currently in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply Rublamb (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only quick comment here is that I *hate* using the term dormant in this context. If a GLO uses that term fine, but using it across the project, ug.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive works for me. That terminology would align with our chapter tables. FYI: I just came across an article that had something like: 123 (chartered), 12 (active) in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least useful. A group down to 10% of charters. Oof. Naraht (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, by "I *hate* using the term dormant in this context," do you mean we should reserve "dormant" to describe an entire organization, and use "inactive" for individual chapters? I'd be OK with that. And again, I support the general plan as discussed. Jax MN (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN All contexts...Naraht (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico[edit]

  • I think CIPR (Concilio Interfraternitario de Puerto Rico) even without a page is good as an affiliation and should be before CIPFI.
  • the facebook page for Concilio Interfraternitario de Puerto Rico actually lists the Wikipedia template (Template:Concilio Interfraternitario de Puerto Rico as their website. I don't know if this is AI guessing or not.Naraht (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are articles from El Mundo (Puerto Rico) indicating it was founded in August 29, 1958 and a few other from its initial founding. I created the CIPFI article way back then since it was the one I could find information for. El Johnson (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eljohnson15 Anything you can find would be useful. I'd really like to have enough to create the CIPR page (or have someone else create it, I'm not picky. :) )Naraht (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Infobox project[edit]

Thanks for all the work going into the infobox project. I have aleady started working on the needed updates. This is a perfect break from working on a long chapter list or article creation. I have not yet added the links to the WP main page; I want to review other WP pages to find layout for this. If anyone finds a layout they like on another WikiProject page, let me know.

Clearly, this project is uncovering other issues, but that is also really good. We now know we need to define what we want in the infoboxes and how to apply those terms--and document those decisions. And, as a reminder, I also want to add a link to Category:Fraternity and sorority stubs to the enhanced work list we create for the WP main page. Some of these are on articles that are no longer stubs. I am going to run through the list right now and complete a quick cleanup.

Besides infoboxes, there are a few other items to attempt. No rush on this. I just wanted to document my thoughts while I was thinking about it.

  • Articles without short descriptions. - tracked here
  • Redirects - these look like articles in our watch list, but could be articles in some cases.
  • Articles that are orphans (not linked to other articles). I doubt we have any of these, but I want to check, just in case. I may be able to find these using tools in WP: Orphanage. I will check.
  • This is the big one: articles with issue notices. These are usually posted above the infobox, but are sometimes in or above the reference section, at the top of a section, or within the text section of the article. There are a lot of these notices, and many variations are possible because of bot-added dates. The ones most commonly used for articles under our domain are {notability}, {Unreferenced}, {Refimprove}, {nofootnotes}, {original research}, {POV}, {One source}, {More footnotes needed}, {Primary sources}}, {more citations needed}, {More footnotes needed}, {cleanup}, {Multiple issues}, {COI editnotice}, and {copy edit}. These should be within the text only: {Unreferenced section} and {Citation needed}.

Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly using Infobox Fraternity (for most) allows a lot of searches to be done for the infobox and for the text of the article issue notice, so sticking in
"This article needs additional citations for" insource:/nfobox Fraternity/
into an infobox will get *most* of the articles in the project with {more citations needed} Naraht (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: I used petscan to find articles missing short descriptions and can see how it will work for the various notices. I feel sure there is a way to use it to find articles in our WP that don't have an infobox, but have not yet figured out the right place to put the search criteria. Rublamb (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove City College redirects.[edit]

The local fraternities and sororities at Grove City College all have redirects to the college. Given that they aren't even specifically mentioned in the article anymore, I think they should be nuked. Naraht (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that the body text for the school article be adjusted to list them. Without WLs, probably. I thought that there were one or two that had actual articles. Did you check each of them? Jax MN (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked. Grove City fraternities with articles include: Adelphikos and Pan Sophic, along with numerous redirects. Jax MN (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just remembered: As I mentioned above in Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus, there also redirects in our Watchlist section "Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus" that go to removed content from the university article. The problem in all of these cases is that the unviversity article was trimmed without addressing the related redirects. Does anyone in our WP have authority to delete redirects? I have not had luck with this before because I was not the one who created the redirect. Rublamb (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WINE Psi Phi[edit]

Fun facts: Wine Psi Phi chapters were named for kinds of wine and its president was the Supreme Grand Grape. And yet, this was not started as a GLO parody.

I decided to use past tense for the article. As far as I can tell, all collegiate chapters went inactive by the mid-1980s, probably earlier. (It had two hazing deaths in the 1970s that probably were a factor.) Around 2010, alumni began an effort to reform as a community-based fraternity, including hosting national conventions and electing a grand council. Activity seemed to be limited to one graduate chapter in NC which also hosted the national office. However, no one realized that their trademark and copyright had expired in 2014. Some other alumni in Chicago scooped up the trademark and have what appears to be a local service group that uses the former national's name. Unable to reconcile, the revived national had no choice but to change its name. If we say WINE Psi Phi is active, we almost have to pick sides and/or change the name of the article. That does not make sense to me, especially given that the only sources for the revivals and name change are chapter websites. Are we good with past tense for this article? @Naraht added a redirect for the new name. And I have contacted both groups to see if we can get more information on the collegiate closures. Rublamb (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any one else notice that the greek at the bottom of the new Coat of Arms is Iota Delta Gamma Alpha Phi? and with the new name treatin that as a "Fai", that means it spells out IDGAF, as in "I Don't Give A F---".Naraht (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDGAF goes back to the early 1970s; I found it in yearbooks too. They say its meaning is only known to the initiated and is not what you think. I found that in the Greek chat forum, so it is not included in the article. My guess is that it predates our usage of IDGAF and, like their WINE anacronym, is now unfortunate for a group that wants to be taken seriously. By the way, the replacement fraternity name uses Old Egyptian/Coptic letters instead of Greek because Egypt was the cradle of civilization, not ancient Greece (their words paraphrased. Silly me. I thought the "cradle" was Mesopotamia... Rublamb (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confraternities in Nigeria[edit]

I am correct that we don't want Nigerian confraternities under our scope? A group showed up in our data report for lack of scope, but I will gladly change its infobox to organization. Rublamb (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article?Naraht (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Association of Seadogs. It has a really nice website. Rublamb (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not sure we really have a choice. Collegiately based, at least in the original concept and limited membership. It belongs here, IMO.Naraht (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I am creating a new type: Confraternity
I did some research and have created List of confraternities in Nigeria with over 50 documented organizations. Note that some of these have chapters in other countries, including Canada. I added that article and Confraternities in Nigeria to the watchlist. I did not add Confraternity as that is clearly a church related thing. I will now go though the groups I linked and see where they fall (university of community-based) and add to the watchlist if appropriate. Except for two active groups with university connections, I do not plan on adding redlinked groups to the watchlist; there is not enough information to expect an article in English Wikipedia and most are community-based. However, I could go all in and add a new section to the watchlist, if so directed. Rublamb (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might you go a little longer on this, perhaps in the lede of the article? Specifically, add a definition for use within the fraternal category noting where it differs from church-related use. I've seen it elsewhere, in some of the Latin fraternities, but had thought it referred to co-educational groups. Shows how much I was paying attention. Jax MN (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proofreading the main article and reviewing new sources was draining for several reasons, and I am not keen to linger there. I honestly don't know why they started being called confraternities as the first group was like a fraternity, with no religious connection. Later, there was voodoo was linked to some and, the government seems to call them "cults" instead of gangs. It could be that the fraternal initiation rites are considered "religious" in Nigeria. Maybe the BBC article I found answers the confraternity question. I will look. Rublamb (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GLOs by "level"[edit]

I don't have a good feeling here for this, but I'd like to start a discussion on the types that I see. As far as I can tell, we have

  1. High School groups (both High school honoraries and the groups like BBYO and Scouts Royale Brotherhood).
  2. Two year college groups (Like Delta Psi Omega, which right now is combined with Alpha Psi Omega, its 4 year equivalent).
  3. Four year college groups (including those that have community chapters and/or alumni chapters)
  4. Four year college groups allowing two year college chapters (started and focused on four year colleges but allow two year college, some professional, some honorary)
  5. Requires a Bachelors to be even be at the school that has the chapter (Med School Fraternities, Legal Fraternities)
  6. Entirely community based.

I'm not honestly sure if these should be part of type, or called something else. Not sure that four year GLOs should really be distinguished if they allow chapters at 2 year schools (Alpha Phi Omega has about 30 charters at 2 year schools as opposed to over 700 at four year schools as well as some of the older fraternities and sororities which had two year schools early in their history that they'll never go back to.Naraht (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your suggestion of there being two "Four year college" types, one of which supports some Two-year school activity, I don't think those need to be split out. I'd also note that some honor societies are entirely post-grad, while others support tapping early in the undergrad years, or while in grad school. There is also a distinction to be made between variants of the community-based (i.e.: non collegiate) organizations, but this can be clarified in the "emphasis" field.
Is this discussion for the purpose of creating new categories? Or for the infoboxes, or for a new column in our standard chapter table? Jax MN (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if I have to pick one, I'd say infobox parameter. The primary question that led to this in my head is "How should the infobox for a High School Mathematics Honorary be shown differently in the infobox from a College Mathematics Honorary?". However, I could easily see this being a question for categories as well.Naraht (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am consistent, but that is where Emphasis is useful. For example, it can say High School Mathematics or Junior College Mathematics, depending on the org. I also use this for honor societies that go by class year, meaing Freshmen, Juniors, Seniors, etc.
We also need to address gender. Since the infobox does not specify fraternity or sorority, you cannot tell which the group is at a quick glance. My general thought it to use "Social fraternity" or "Social sorority", instead of "Social" but that would be big update. Also, the infobox does not have a place to indicate that a professional organization or honor society is geneder specific, rather than coed. I vary in putting this detail in Type or Emphasis, so it would be good to set guidelines. Rublamb (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wide variance of gender rules, I tend to move these facts to the body text. Until about ten years ago, the three options were consistent: men's, women's and co-ed. Today, some groups proudly lead with "nonbinary" or trans-friendly in the lede. Others have no interest in further differentiating. Forcing the point seems to tread into political matters and may evoke edit warring. It would be a significant project to keep track of which groups have effected which level of policy on this. I, for one, don't have time to research this, nor keep track of annual legislation. Let's let each individual group opt to adjust their body text, if it is that important to them. Many will not, and are satisfied with declaring "men's", "women's" or "co-ed" in the lede. Jax MN (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different issues. 1) One is my proposal to identify fraternities vs. sororities/women's fraternities for social organizations. This is something that we essentially do in many cases by including umbrella org affiliation, but since we should not assume everyone knows what those umbrella initials mean, this detail would make that info more accessible. Indicating what the group calls itself is not necessarily a reflection of the membership's makeup, so we are not getting involved in identifying who can or cannot join. I agree, that that is beyond the purpose of the infobox.
2) The other issue is the best way to include GLOs that have a gender focus which is a key aspect of the organization. For example, if a professional sorority's purpose is to help women become leaders, not including the gender focus is akin to ignoring that a group is multicultural, Jewish, or historically black. We could indicate this by noting its Type is a Professional Sorority or that its Emphasis is Women's Leadership. Does anyone have a preference or another suggestion? We already include LGBTQ in Emphasis if that if the organization's purpose/mission. The rare women-only or mens-only professional, honor, or service groups seem to be the outliers. Rublamb (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter List merger, micro vs. macro.[edit]

For the Theta Upsilon Omega chapter list, there are eleven chapters marked Merged (ΣΦΕ) , and while that is true, seven of the chapters moved from Theta Upsilon Omega to Sigma Phi Epsilon and became new chapters of Sigma Phi Epsilon, and four of them merged with the Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters on campus. (https://archive.org/details/ourjourneyofbrot0000eske/page/48/mode/2up?q=%22theta+upsilon+omega%22) There is a third possibility, (that I think I saw on either AEPi or ZBT) where a merger led to one of the chapters from the group merging in restored an inactive chapter of the merged into group. Is this worth noting in the Status for the group merging in?Naraht (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually explain this as an EFN, with the table sometimes reflecting the eventual successor for that chapter. It seems this information is both interesting and germane, but also the explanation is too long for an infoxbox field. Jax MN (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the EFN suggestion. At some point, I would like the EFN to say what chapter it became of the successor, not just the successor's name. That would make it much easier for someone to track this type of complex history. Rublamb (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homepages for merged groups.[edit]

For Zeta Beta Tau, they have a page for each group that merged into ZBT for example, https://zbt.org/about-zbt/our-antecedent-groups/kappa-nu/ Should this be Kappa Nu's homepage in their infobox? (there are a *few* other places I've seen similar) Naraht (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of a later researcher, it would be helpful to offer separate pages for dormant, but merged groups. --Just as we offer them for fully dormant groups. Dunno if much else is needed, as the first incidence of Kappa Nu would reasonably include a Wikilink. ZBT's predecessor groups are really the best example here. Beta Kappa going into Theta Chi is another. Jax MN (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include this webpage or the successor group's website as the Infobox website. I assume this webpage would be a source for the article, so it would already be included. In addition, there would be a link to the successor's Wikpedia article that would have the website link. Sometimes, I have seen the successor group's website listed in External Links. But on a practical note, one thing I like about inactive org articles is that we don't have to worry about updating their infoboxes. Adding that webpage link just give us something else to monitor. Rublamb (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY regional fraternities[edit]

Just as a note, I think if a page can be created for Delta Kappa, the NY Regional forced to have its chapters or at least the ones in New York forced Local, we *should* be able to do the same with others from the SUNY system like Alpha Delta Sorority which I think is older. In the 1929 SUNY-Brockport yearbook (https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstreams/65b23998-922a-46d6-b663-85fb5385b774/download) , it had chapters at Brockport, Cortland, Geneseo, Oneonta, Oswego, Plattsburgh, Bloomsburg and Fredonia. Agonia Sorority also had about the same number over the SUNY schools. Naraht (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four year groups *sponsoring* two year groups[edit]

In addition to the Alpha Psi Omega /Delta Psi Omega relationship, it looks like Alpha Phi Gamma sponsored a Journalism honorary at two year colleges called Beta Phi Gamma. Naraht (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Psi Chi sponsors Psi Beta, for two-year schools. The English honorary may do likewise. Jax MN (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, went through a few and found that we do have a category at Category:Two-year college honor societies, In the short term, I think I'll added enough about Beta Phi Gamma in a section and then create a redirect with possibilities and add it to the cat. Not all of the groups in the cat have a relationship with a four year group, but I think that's the place to start. (And yes, the two year english honorary Sigma Kappa Delta does have a relationship with Sigma Tau Delta.Naraht (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the honor societies have college/high school divisions. Some even have middle school (junior) divisions. Most I came across are a subdivision of a professional associations, rather than stand-alone organizations. Some are already included in the Honor society list. However, I suspect the only source is going to be the professional organization's website. Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation = Independent?[edit]

I know we have a lot of groups that have no affiliation at all. I noticed that at least one has been changed to Independent. Is that preferred to simply leaving it blank?Naraht (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered the same thing. I guess it keeps us from looking it up multiple times. Is there any other value? Note that if we do want this info filled in as affiliated or independent, then Affiliation should be part of the Infobox fraternity template. Rublamb (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be referring to one I just did. Chi Delta Mu. As it had a category listing at the bottom of the page, indicating a missing Affiliation field, I added this. I didn't see an affiliation on their website, but it indeed they have one, this will prompt a correction. If there is a strong preference for omitting this, I would defer. Jax MN (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is included in many articles. The completionist in me likes to include it. However, do we only include this if the org specifically states that it is independent (meaning there is a source rather than a lack of info)? This is the same issue I have when trying to prove a chapter is inactive--how do you cite the absence of something? Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's beneficial, I think, to place each of the societies into one of the major buckets (member, former member and now independent, independent). The multiple nuances here are why we adjusted the infobox template to allow for two affiliation fields... Jax MN (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think it should be a set field, rather than added through the free field. That way, all editors would know to include it. (maybe this is only an issue in visual editor?) Rublamb (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point about 'set fields': Note that perhaps 2 years ago we added two optional affiliation fields, "affiliation" and "affiliation2". The initials of many of the major trade associations for fraternities will pull up their full name and links.
| affiliation = <!-- Link to any of: ACHS, CIPFI, FFC, NALFO, NAPA, NMGC, NPHC, NPC, NIC, PFA or UCCFS (just use initials) Other modifiers: "(former)" or "Independent"-->
| affiliation2 = <!-- (If needed) links any of ACHS, CIPFI, FFC, NALFO, NAPA, NMGC, NPHC, NPC, NIC, PFA or UCCFS (just use initials) If appropriate, use modifier: "(former)"-->
Jax MN (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, affiliation has not been an option in Visual Editor (which provides a list of possible fields). As a result, the only way to add affiliation to the Infobox fraternity was by using the Free field, meaning it did not automatically go to the desired order in the Infobox and also had a note indicating it was not a recognized parameter. Now, affiliation is showing up at the very bottom of the list of items to add. This is new. There is just one field for affiliation, not two. But this is a step in the right direction. Is there a way to change its order in the list to be with its related components?
This is the list of options in Visual Editor for Infobox fraternity. Is anything else missing?
  • name
  • letters
  • coat of arms
  • crest
  • image_size
  • alt
  • caption
  • founded
  • birthplace
  • type
  • emphasis
  • scope
  • mission
  • vision
  • object
  • motto
  • virtues
  • pillars
  • slogan
  • maxim
  • tagline
  • member badge
  • pledge name
  • pledge pin
  • colony badge
  • colony pledge pin
  • colors
  • symbol
  • flag
  • flower
  • tree
  • jewel
  • mascot
  • patron greek divinity
  • patron roman divinity
  • patron saint
  • publication
  • philanthropy
  • charterdate
  • chartercity
  • chapters
  • colonies
  • members
  • lifetime
  • nickname
  • free_label
  • free
  • free_label1
  • free1
  • free2
  • free_label2
  • location
  • address
  • city
  • state
  • province
  • ZIP code
  • postal code
  • country
  • coordinates
  • homepage
  • footnotes
  • affiliation
I would love to trim this list. Why do we have both Founded/Birthplace and Charter Date/Charter City (which do not show up in the same place in the infobox if selected)? Also, didn't we decide to remove Mission a while back (since these are usually too long for the infobox? Do we really need Vision (which goes along with a mission statement) and Object (another term for mission)? I don't know if these are used in any article. And, aren't Slogan, Maxim, and Tagline the same thing, meaning we could have just one? Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, charterdate and chartercity are used in *one* infobox, Kappa Alpha Psi, which also uses Founded/Birthdate, I *very* much support removing that pair.
Vision looks to be about half a dozen (limiting my search to those using template:infobox fraternity (rather than a redirect) and fraternity), I'm OK with removing those (or moving to free_label)
Object, I haven' found *any*.
Patron X, I've found 4 in total for all three types of patrons, but there is at least one that I seem to remember that isn't there. Easiest way to test these is to remove them from the list of good parameters and see how many get kicked out (I can look at that in the category of what uses the infobox with bad parameters:(Naraht (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed charter date/charter city from Kappa Alpha Psi, so that is ready to remove. Note that it also uses Object with the response "Cane". I will do some research to see what that means; if important I will move it to a free label. Rublamb (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Object field in Kappa Alpha Psi. I am not showing any using the Vision field with petscan; of course, no Object field either. If you can let me know which articles have a Vision, I will fix them too.
Are you proposing to just have one field for patron god or saint? Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this. Yes, one field for patron (explained with an editing note) will suffice for those three current fields. I support the deletion of Charter city and Charter date. I also don't see a need for Coordinates. Last, because these were formerly more notable, I'd keep the separate, optional field for pledge pin, but don't really see a need to keep the two fields, Colony badge and Colony pledge pin. These may be best relegated to deep historical analysis outside of these summary articles. I don't know that even pin collectors bother with these. Jax MN (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the colony badges simply because the odds are against us ever finding images for both. I could see coordinates being used for those single-chapter secret society types, but am fine without it. Rublamb (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb how are you counting the uses of each parameter using petscan? I'm still hesitant on the patron combination until I see the numbers. Feels like at some point someone working on the Kappa Alpha Psi web page expanded the list of parameters. And *yes* canes are very important to Kappa Alpha Psi brothers.Naraht (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Object was added by a User:2 since banned as a sockpuppet in 2010.
I know "kanes" are important→—I just relocated that content to the Symbols which was being used to describe the badge. (I also did a refresh on article and added some needed sources). I was hoping that petscan would work since I used it successfully to find articles without short descriptions, following your example with the infobox date field. I am guessing it does not work unless the content is in question is in {{}}, so nevermind in that is the case. But when it works, you get can get a list of anything with the Infobox fraternity that has or desont have content in a given field, which is the exactly what we need here (a canned report to check content in given fields). Anyay, if you can can figue out how to capture the needed data, I am willing to go through ahd review/move the content. Rublamb (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with non-matching name[edit]

Just curious, who took a crack at reducing this one. I remember there were almost 30 in there before including a lot I wasn't sure should be changed.Naraht (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on that. At least one article was moved to a new name. Rublamb (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RublambDuring what time period, I'd like to look through them, and not sure where to look in your contributions.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found at about 07:00 on the 14th will look when I have a chance.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have time to look at this? Are there any to talk about? The ones I left have issues: one is a mass up of the term and a group that needs to be split into two articles. Rublamb (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German umbrella org[edit]

Just found a stub about a German fraternal umbrella association: Wingolf. I added it to the watchlist and added the WP to its talkpage. Rublamb (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Collegiate Network[edit]

Baptist Collegiate Network pulled into our report because it uses a fraternity infobox. I added our WP to the talkpage but am not clear if this really falls under our umbrella. Can someone take a look and provide a second opinion before we add it to our watchlist? Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. I'd feel much more comfortable with infobox organization and move the number of colleges it is on to prose.Naraht (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for backing my opinion. I will take care of this. Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patron X[edit]

I definitely undercounted. Patron Saint has at least: Phi Mu Delta, Mu Epsilon Theta, Pi Lambda Sigma, Tau Gamma Sigma, Delta Phi, Theta Phi Alpha, Theta Xi, St. Anthony Hall, AV Edo-Rhenania zu Tokio. Patron Greek Divinity appears to have 16, and Patron Roman Divinity has 5. Wierdest is Theta Kappa Pi which has as its Patron Greek Divinity as Odin the Wanderer (!) which I'm still trying to find a reference for. (added very close to the beginning, which a ref that appears dead. http://mycampus.lewisu.edu/web/170608/about-us .Naraht (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic me says "guess we need a field fo Patron Norse Divinity". Being serious, it looks like Greek Divinity is the one the change to the new Patron Divinity field, then we can move the others over. Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though at this point, I'm not sure we *need* to change. (ignoring Theta Kappa Pi's situation), I'm not sure that these (at 16, 9 & 5) are the least used of the paramers. I'm guessing both coords and pillars are in the bottom mostly below that. At *most*, I'd want to change this to a variety of free & free_label. (Patron and Patron type?) and does that gain us much? Still wish I could figure out how many are used of each parameter.Naraht (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pillars is not used because most groups call these something else (often a made up term or phrase). I have added these when I come across them. Having one Patron Divinity field would trim the long list of options and allow for outliers. I would call it Patron Divinity not Patron to avoid possible confusion with sponsors/founders who might be called a Patron. BTW, Affiliation and Status still are not showing up as options in Visual Editor unless they are already added. So we need to solve that issue before or when we make changes. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Affiliations and Status at the very end of the list when I use the VE. What is your last one?Naraht (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them there and thought things were good, but then noticed it was missing. Maybe it is there when adding a new infoboxes, but not for older ones? Or maybe it has to do with whether the infobox was added through VE or not. Picked one at ramdon. See Swing Phi Swing. Rublamb (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is putting at the end, any undocumented fields that the parameters exists in that article's infobox. So Swing Phi Swing has factoid and Delta Delta Delta has affiliation and status. (that is the (undocumented parameter) note I'm not sure what needs to be altered in Template:Infobox fraternity/doc, but, I'll try to tweek it.Naraht (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and sororities in Germany[edit]

The category Fraternities and sororities in Germany seems to automatically change to the category Student societies in Germany which is not a category we would typically follow as it could include many non-fraternal groups. Can someone figure out why this is happening? I know it is tied to Studentenverbindungen--but what if a German fraternity or sorority is not a Studentenverbindungen? Rublamb (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1225486548"